Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Evidence: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 717:
I see two sides to the Wiki controversy on SAQ: on one side, those who passionately defend Stratford, and on the other side, SAQ proponents who think that there are valid and interesting reasons for questioning the Stratfordian attribution. The article has been written by the passionate defenders, who have converted the article into a history of the question (though there is also a separate Wiki entry on this). Moreover, they use every opportunity to belittle the SAQ concept. What the defenders have not allowed is a concise and cogent synopsis of the reasons for questioning Stratfordian attribution. The bias is apparent in the first paragraph of the entry, in which SAQ is a presented as a fringe concept. Stratfordians are considered Shakespeare scholars, whereas SAQ supporters are discredited as "an assortment of supporters." The article uses terms such as "unequivocal" to describe the set of facts that are relied upon to defend Stratfordian authorship, and whereas these facts are recounted in detail (too much so for a wiki entry), the weaknesses underlying these "facts" go unmentioned.
Not all who support the SAQ position are necessarily anti-Stratfordians; some, such as Diana Price, have simply published work showing why the case for attribution is particularly weak. Another good pro-
http://www.continuumbooks.com/books/detail.aspx?BookId=133116&SubjectId=997&Subject2Id=997
In general, I think that proponents of the
"The Shakespeare authorship question encompasses the concept that William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon may not have been the author of the body of works generally attributed to him."
| |||